Terminate nuclear deal if clashes with national security: BJP

New Delhi, Aug 17: Cautioning that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal would decapacitate India from acquiring a minimum credible nuclear deterrence, the BJP today demanded that the Manmohan Singh government heed the advice given by top scientists of the country and tell the Bush administration that it would terminate the deal if the crippling conditionalities being imposed on it by the Congress were not withdrawn.

''Let the message go loud and clear to the US that Parliament of India cannot bow to the will of the Congress,'' said Former External Affairs Minister and senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha, initiating the short duration discussion in the Rajya Sabha on the issue.

He called for bringing in a Sense of Parliament' resolution' to tell the Congress and the Bush Government that the country would not accept any accord if it compromised with its strategic interest.

Mr Sinha also demanded constitution of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to oversee the implementation of such a resolution, which he said amid thumping of desk by the Opposition, was being favoured by all Members cutting across partylines.

India should clearly tell the US that it would terminate the deal anytime if found to be going against its national security, he said.

Quoting extensively from statements of US officials, senators and proceedings of the Congress and its various committee, Mr Sinha said there was a great divergence in the understanding of the US and India of the provisions of the deal.

Mr Sinha said while the Prime Minister had assured this House that permanence of safeguards will depend on reciprocity of the US in continuing the supply of the fuel for its nuclear reactors, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said on record that she had very clearly told India that permanence of safeguards will be without any condition and the US will terminate the deal if at anytime it was found to be violating the International Atomic Energy norms.

Moreover, while the PMO said in backgrounder on July 29, eleven days after the July 18 declaration on the deal, that the country was going to be recognised as a nuclear weapon state, US officials came out promptly saying that India's understanding of the deal was flawed.

The Prime Minister said there will be no departures from the July 18 accord, but the country had already accepted watertight separation for its civil and military nuclear facilities, which no nuclear weapon stats does.

''We have also accepted the international safeguards in perpetuity, which also no nuclear weapons state will do,'he added.

The former external affairs minister said the basic rationale behind concluding the deal was that it would provide India energy security, but that premise is flawed because if there is no guarantee of supply of nuclear fuel, there could not be any energy security.

It was because of this and the enormous costs that separation of civil nuclear facilities would invlove that the BJP had opposed the deal.

He also criticised the Prime Minister for not taking Parliament into confidence about the costs and other details of the deal.

Referring to the foreign policy pursued by Jawaharlal Nehru and the atomic initiatives of Dr Homi Bhabha, the nuclear tests of 1974 and then 1998, he said India's nuclear programme was never dependent on any foreign cooperation and support and the country in fact withstood and overcame the barrage of opposition and sanctions in the wake of its nuclear tests.

Mr Sinha at the end urged the UPA Government to come clear on these concerns shared by Members cutting across partylines and bring in a Sense of House Resolution to tell the US that it will never compromise its sovereignty and security.

Expressing serious apprehension that the July 18 nuclear deal would serve strategic interests of the US in the existing global scenario, CPM leader and Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said the US had shifted its goalpost on nine occasions since then. ''US Senate and Congress are laying down a string of conditionalities on India's nuclear interests, and it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to allay all such apprehensions,'' Mr Yechury said in his over half-an-hour contention, made with a lot of gusto and forceful reasoning.

Pointing out that his party was worried about the implicit danger of the treaty, he said the US President had been given the ''waiver authority'' after the deal was to be approved by the Congress and the Senate, but the terms of this waiver authority were being decided by the American Parliament.

''The US government is trying to browbeat us, and we need a categorical assurance from the PM, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), that India has not been thrown into a vortex of furthering US' strategic interests,'' he said.

''We do not want this deal to be a carrot and stick policy,'' he asserted.

Fully endorsing the Prime Minister's eight per cent growth agenda that would require tremendous energy augmentation, the CPM leader said the country would also like whether such an augmentation was feasible in terms of nuclear energy.

Last year, India could produce only 3310 MW of atomic energy, which accounted for 2.5 per cent of total energy generation. ''India has now set a target of 10,000 MW of nuclear power by 2015, but this is a very expensive proposition as compared to hydel power,'' he argued.

Citing a report, he said India had untapped hydel potential to the tune of 50,000 MW. In Nepal too, such a potential had remained largely unutilised.

''We have to tap this potential to save millions of Indians from floods in Nepal,' he said.

Mr Yechury also pointed out that no nuclear plant had come in the US during the last three decades, and the American government had explicitly accepted the very high cost of disposing nuclear wastes.

Asserting that the nuclear deal suffered from some fundamental flaws, he wondered why India was keen to produce nuclear energy at a price which could not be sustained.

Mr Yechuri, while highlighting the nine-point objection to the deal, wanted to know from the government whether India was entering into a ''multi-lateral agreement'' or a ''bilateral'' one with the US since many parties to it had to be satisfied. He asked the government to come out with ''some form of an expression'', whether a legislation or anything else, to send the message ''loud a no clear'' that India was not kow-towing the US line but was pursuing its own independent foreign policy.

This is the bottom-line that should be spelt out in the nation's interest, he added.

Mr N Jothi (AIADMK), while describing it a ''one-sided'' treaty, warned of an agitation against the deal saying ''the minority Congress government cannot hold the country to ransom.'' ''Not only the goalposts, but the whole playing field, playing rules, the game and even the players were being changed,''he said in an emotional speech.

Pointing out that the country had enough uranium reserves and was in an advanced stage of thorium research, Mr Joshi sought the government's assurance that through the nuclear agreement, the US would not have inspection rights of India's nuclear research.

''There is something wrong somewhere...There is some seditious view...please find them and weed them out,'' he said amid objections and protests from treasury benches.

Mr Mangani Lal Mandal (RJD), while supporting the nuclear agreement, said the basis of India's foreign policy was not opposing Iran at US behest. He said India's stand had been made very clear by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his speech earlier.

Samajwadi Party Member Amar Singh -- who, in his inimitable manner, introduced a breath of raw humour in the otherwise serious discussion so far -- supported former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha that the ''Sense of the House'' be taken on the matter and a Resolution passed accordingly to give direction to the Government.

''Precedences exist... we did so in the case of Lebanon... so also on Iraq....'' Further, reminding the House of US imposing sanctions on India following the 1998 Pokhran N-Tests, he cautioned against ''trusting the United States too much'' -- which, he maintained, was a folly.

He warned that ''too much trust'' reposed in the US could result in India once again having to pass through a phase where ''we could be denied much necessary nuclear fuel for our reactors''.

''Let us not have to mortgage our sovereignty to the sole global super-power,'' he warned.

But -- the oppositional tenor of his contribution to the lively discussion notwithstanding -- Mr Amar Singh maintained that he supported the Indo-US N-Deal ''in letter and spirit''.

Dr K Kasturirangan (Nominated), a noted scientist, sought to allay any fears about the nuclear deal and praised the government for having handled the issue well so far but cautioned against any future developments that could go against India. ''At present it has been dealt with well. One should not be unduly concerned. But that doesn't mean that that one should n't tread a cautious path. If there is anything likely to happen, the Parliament is alert,'' he said amid thumping of desks.

While explaining the technical issues involved in the deal, Dr Kasturirangan, a former Chief of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and who has played an important role in the nation's space technology, said there was no major thing that one should worry about.

''The deal at the present level of processing in the US and the discussion in India is such that there is no major thing that one should worry about. However, we have to be continuously alert...'' He said Indian science was at a stage where it did not have to get anything from the US or any other country. The US was looking at India as a partner, particularly after 9/11 when both countries understood each other's security interests in the new global order.

''We are no longer looking at the US for getting something.

We are looking at being equal partners...There is no question of India linking itself with the US President or the Congress,'' he said while seeking to allay the fears of the membrs on various issues, including unilateral moratorium, the separation of military and civil nuclear facilities and compromising with the country's strategic interests.

He described it as a ''significant initiative'' which was taken by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the form of two lines, and carried forward by the present government which subsequently took the form of paragraphs and later became text.

The present situation (the debate) was because of the nature of the deal,'' Dr Kasturirangan added.

Former Minister of State for External Affairs in the NDA Government Digvijay Singh, SP, pointed to the suspicions raised in the minds of the members on the Indo-US nuclear deal as India and the US were speaking in different voices. In an impassioned speech, he demanded that the Prime Minister take the nation into confidence about the deal as his own partymen, who were privy to the details, were now backing out.

Noting that leading scientists, too, had expressed concern over the July 18 deal, Mr Singh wanted to know whether the deal would compromise India's integrity and sovereignty or would it strengthen the coming generations? He recalled the principled stand adopted by former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi when they refused to bow to the dictates of the superpower and accept a disparate Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, that was detrimental to the country's interests.

Terming it ''a unilateral, not bilateral'' deal, TDP member C Ramachandraiah cast doubts over the nuclear agreement, saying unless extraordinary benefits were being realised, the deal was not justifiable as the country did not need any technology at this juncture.

Appealing to the Prime Minister not to make India into a client state of the US, the member further said the only benefits from the ''controversial deal was to prop up the sagging image of US President George W Bush''.

As the Chair called out Arun Shourie's name, former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh, who was present during the debate in the House, quickly rose to his feet and demanded that he be heard. However, Chairman K Rahman Khan, citing procedures, disallowed him as it was the BJP's turn.

An insistent Mr Natwar Singh could be heard saying, ''I was the External Affairs Minister and I have the right to speak'' but was quieted after the Chair assured him that he would get a chance to speak on the notice given by the former.

BJP member Arun Shourie drew the House's attention to the deal which ''would decide the fate of the nation for the next 50 years'' and read out extracts from statements made in the US Senate that had passed the nuclear deal with an overwhelming majority.

Saying one of the avowed objectives of the US was ''to halt, roll back and eventually eliminate'' the nuclear capability of countries like India, Mr Shourie said one of the statements emanating from the US talked of India shutting down Cirius in four years. ''Why should we close down Cirius when we don't have another reactor?'' he asked.

He also noted that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had told the Senate that to rectify ''an untenable situation'' the deal sought to bring India into the ''non-proliferation regime''. When the Senate had thrown out CTBT, it wanted India to abide by the CTBT's provisions.

Mr Shourie appealed to the Prime Minister to reconsider the issue and not make this agreement a personal matter. Mr Rashid Alvi of Congress said the Indian foreign policy is always appreciated the world over. After 1974 and 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests many sanctions were imposed on India and that time only France and Russia had help the country. Since 1978 our four reactors remained in safeguards.

''At present, we have thermal power capacity up to 19 per cent and by 2014 this would go up to 65 per cent.'' Agreement has not been passed as yet by the Senate and US President Bush was still to sign the same, he added.

He said the July 18 agreement was not anti-nuclear. At the most, if need to do tests, India can do so and US could say stop nuclear fuel supply then IAEA or any third country will continue to supply fuel.

Speaking about Iran, Mr Alvi said that country will always give priority to its own interests and India should also think its interests first before taking any stand regarding Iran.

He said India stood by Lebanon on the issue of Israel but Iran would never like that India's ambition to become a nuclear state be fulfilled.

Mr Alvi said there was nothing wrong with the agreement and the propaganda was baseless and the Prime Minister's decision was in favour of the nation.

Dr P C Alexander (Independent) made it clear there is a public opinion against the Bill. There is confusion not only in the minds of people, scientists, members of Parliament and even our own Missions abroad.

''Confusion is in many ways like what is the objective of this agreement and what are we going to achieve out of it. Confusion arises about the India-US concurral foreign policy,'' he added.

Dr Alexander said, '' We are mature and wise enough to see our policies.

UNI *